The development harmed the character and appearance of the countryside

[Nullifidian]

"The development harmed the character and appearance of the countryside"

That's what they said about this beautifully idyllic, unobtrusive, hobbit-esque house built entirely from natural resources, followed by an order to take down the structure which would leave a family of 3 homeless, and £15,000 wasted out of their own pocket. Now, I'm no live-and-let-love hippy or whatever and technically they're in the wrong but the reasoning for this decision is absolutely pathetic and I think exceptions should be made on a case by case basis.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...materials.html
http://naturalhomes.org/save-charlies-house.htm

[j-rodd123]

well I say good riddance to that nasty shrek ass looking shack


naw but that sucks for the family for sure

[Choofers]

they broke the law

hopefully they can get the ruling overturned

[Arntonach]

Making exceptions when it comes to the law is incredibly shaky since it brings into question as to why they should be excluded from following said law and what would happen if they did leave it as is. Of course the reasoning behind the charge is pretty bad, the only way the family would get to keep the house is from bad PR.

[danny53x]

In my eye, that's an enhancement, not harm.

[dAnceguy117]

Serious bummer, partly because the home looks so unique, but mostly because these people won't have anywhere to live for at least a short while.

I don't see it as an injustice, though. I see it as a cautionary tale. Laws were created to be upheld. Do your due diligence.